The New Republic is teaming with the Third Way Democrats...

In case many of you noticed TNR's militant change in tone since the election...Beinart especially...here is perhaps why.

"Conferences: Third Way is teaming with other organizations to host semi-annual retreats that will engage Senators, senior progressive officials, and experts on security affairs on issues that go to the heart of the progressive problem on national security. The first such retreat, co-hosted by The New Republic, will take place in September at the Aspen Institute’s Wye River Plantation. The insights and arguments elicited at that retreat will play a major role in the production of the first Third Way blueprint on national security.

http://www.third-way.com/products/national_security.htm

"The Third Way National Security Project is designed to address one of the most serious problems facing progressives today – our lack of a compelling vision for protecting this nation and its interests both at home and abroad. In election results and opinion polls dating from both before and after 9/11, progressives are viewed as weaker than conservatives on the main qualities it takes to protect our nation: maintaining a strong national defense and prosecuting the war on terror."

Oh, wait, I thought it was moral values...but they are fixing those as well....more later.

"The Third Way National Security Project — with Senator Joe Lieberman as its Honorary Chairman — is using The Third Way Idea Network to draw upon the best minds in government, think-tanks, academia, the military, the business community and political professionals to move beyond anecdotal discussions of the problems that beset progressive leaders when they address how to best provide for America’s safety and security."

They are using the word Progressive as in going right, whereas I use it meaning keeping centered...twisting and turning...they are not "progressive."

Legislation: Third Way is helping to design, produce and inspire legislation intended to shore up areas of weakness in our national defense and to underscore the progressives’ commitment to strength and security. We are working closely with a number of Senate offices of both political parties to introduce legislation on this subject. The United States Army Relief Act of 2005, introduced on July 13th by Third Way National Security Project Chairman Senator Joe Lieberman and Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton, Bill Nelson and Jack Reed, along with Representatives Ellen Tauscher and Mark Udall, resulted from a Third Way report detailing the serious crisis facing the Army. Another Third Way bill would improve relations between civilian employers and members of the National Guard and Reserve."

The only practical way to take the pressure of the Guard and Reserves is to institute the draft.

They call their projects "products". Here is the page of their products they will be selling.

http://www.third-way.com/products/index.htm#nationalsecurity

One is about who is winning the "Abortion Greys".

not

.

"turd" way.
My bad.

and the rightwing loved to write about it referencing the Clintons back in the 1990s. So THIS new movement should just give them all kinds of ammo.

Just what are they supposed to be a third way BETWEEN, anyway? Hitler's was between capitalism and communism (socialism, really).

These fools make me weary.

There was the movie called The Quiet American which speaks of the 3rd way. It is a worldwide movement according to their own website...why not just be Democrats.

The Third Way
The Third Way is a global movement dedicated to modernizing progressive politics for the information age. Third Way politics seeks a new balance of economic dynamism and social security, a new social compact based on individual rights and responsibilities, and a new model for governing that equips citizens and communities to solve their own problems. (More about the Third Way...)
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ka.cfm?knlgAreaID=128

Which international bank is funding it?

Baghdad Hi 120F Low 89F damn the boys will need a quilt tonight.

Don't get your hopes up troops - I don't think the Third Way is gonna get you home any faster than the First Way.

But they might be able to get Joe Lieberman to come visit you and pass out the Turkey - how's that for a pick me up to look forward to?

They're in the camp of the Neocons, support the Bush 'doctrine' of aggressive war and promote corporate over social welfare.

Watch how they try to create confusion. Complication, Obfuscation down right lying and misrepresentation. Strauss, Wohlstetter and Trotsky would be proud. Lenin and Stalin figured it out long befor we ever did.

"I wish these guys would stop calling themselves 'Progressives'..."

Sorry, Mr Orwell, I know you were writing fiction not something that should come to pass exponentially in the 21st century.

"They're in the camp of the Neocons, support the Bush 'doctrine' of aggressive war and promote corporate over social welfare."

And just who do they think they're kidding?

He's a sellout just like Zell Miller was.

This is all Democrats need say on national security.

This Bush crowd is well on its way to destroying the military and our ability to fight when we may need to. The Republicans would be screaming about the hundreds of billions of dollars we have borrowed from countries like China to pay for this failed adventure in Iraq.

Is there no Democrat who can speak the truth about Bush and the Republican party's incompetence on national security?

Don't look to "third-wayers," the DLC or The New Republic for the answer! They are too timid to stand up to the thugs running this country into the ground.

I just about flipped when I heard the president was talking about the options on the table for Iran, calling violence a last resort, then quickly talking about Iraq as if it were an example of what we're willing to do.

Uh huh. Last resort my ass.

Remember this from TIME magazine...it is all anyone needs to know about Bush's intentions regarding Iraq-- although the Downing Street Minutes document the same.

First Stop, Iraq

By Michael Elliott and James Carney

How did the U.S. end up taking on Saddam? The inside story of how Iraq jumped to the top of Bush's agenda --and why the outcome there may foreshadow a different world order

"F___ Saddam. we're taking him out." Those were the words of President George W. Bush, who had poked his head into the office of National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice.

It was March 2002, and Rice was meeting with three U.S. Senators, discussing how to deal with Iraq through the United Nations, or perhaps in a coalition with America's Middle East allies.Bush wasn't interested. He waved his hand dismissively, recalls a participant, and neatly summed up his Iraq policy in that short phrase.

The Senators laughed uncomfortably; Rice flashed a knowing smile. The President left the room. A year later, Bush's outburst has been translated into action, as cruise missiles and smart bombs slam into Baghdad.

http://cnn.allpolitics.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=CNN.com+-+First+Stop%2C+Iraq+-+Mar.+24%2C+2003&expire=-1&urlID=5798268&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cnn.com%2F2003%2FALLPOLITICS%2F03%2F24%2Ftimep.saddam.tm%2F&partnerID=2001

who must now find a "third way" to explain their strategeries so they are not misunderestimated when fixing the IWR facts to match today's intelligence and the very disgruntled peasants.

Breakout Session/Work Shop 1
"Explaining support for the Iraq War repetively so the American PRESS will be bamboozeled by our ability to stay on a broken DLC message"

Breakout Session/Workshop 2
"How to get those pesky progressive bloggers to be hypnotized by Joementum & HRC for their own good - Plus 'borrowing' their websites to raise oodles of $$$$"

Breakout Session/Workshop 3 - Mandatory Attendance
"Becoming better Corporate Supplicants by sponsoring follow up legislation to the Patriot Act, Bankruptcy Bill, Anwar Drilling, and more CAFTA/NAFTA Trade Agreements"

:puke:

http://rightweb.irc-online.org/ind/marshall/marshall.php
"Marshall's credentials as a liberal hawk have been well established by his affinity for other PNAC-associated groups, including the U.S. Committee on NATO and the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. Marshall served on the board of directors of the U.S. Committee on NATO alongside such leading neocon figures as Robert Kagan, Richard Perle, Randy Scheunemann, Paul Wolfowitz, Stephen Hadley, Peter Rodman, Jeffrey Gedmin, Gary Schmitt, and the committee's founder and president Bruce Jackson of PNAC. (8) At the request of the Bush administration, PNAC's Bruce Jackson also formed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, which, with DLC chairman Joseph Lieberman serving as co-chair together with John McCain, aimed to build bipartisan support for the liberation, occupation, and democratization of Iraq. Marshall, together with Robert Kerrey (who coauthored Progressive Internationalism), represented the liberal hawk wing of the Democratic Party on the committee's neocon-dominated advisory board. (9) Other advisers included James Woolsey, Elliot Cohen, Newt Gingrich, William Kristol, Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Chris Williams, and Richard Perle.

On February 25, 2003, Marshall joined an array of neoconservatives marshaled by the Social Democrats/USA-a wellspring of neoconservative strategy-to sign a letter to President Bush calling for the invasion of Iraq. Marshall and others asked the president to "act alone if that proves necessary" and then, as a follow-up to a military-induced regime change in Iraq, to implement a democratization plan. The SD/USA letter urged the president to commit his administration to "maintaining substantial U.S. military forces in Iraq for as long as may be required to ensure a stable, representative regime is in place and functioning." Others signing the SD/USA letter included Hillel Fradkin, Rachelle Horowitz, Bruce Jackson, Penn Kemble, Robert Kagan, James Woolsey, Nina Shea, Michael Novak, Clifford May, and Ben Wattenberg. (10) (11)

In the DLC's Blueprint magazine, Marshall wrote: "In addition to scoring Bush's unilateralism and the narrow approach of the neo-imperialist right, the proponents of progressive internationalism--including this author--take on the protectionist, pacifist tendencies of the non-interventionist left. We write: 'Too many on the left seem incapable of taking America's side in international disputes. Viewing multilateralism as an end in itself, they lose sight of goals, such as fighting terrorism or ending gross human rights abuses, which sometimes require the United States to act, if need be, outside a sometimes ineffectual United Nations.' With such a robust strategy, Democrats can take on President Bush in the area of his presumed strength -- if they have the courage to seize it." (12)

In the same article Marshall takes Bush to task for his "my way or the highway approach" and for "riding roughshod" over allies and multilateral institutions, even though Marshall himself signed statements urging the administration to invade Iraq, even if it did not obtain UN approval or the consent of its main allies. "

Several years ago, my mom got me a subscription to it for my birthday (even though I had not requested it). I eventually had to ask her to cancel it because I couldn't stand the RW tone to it. That happened quite some time ago. Sounds like things are getting even worse over there.

And I say good riddance to them all

I am looking up a couple of these guys now. I don't know much about them. I just found one article that describes them as the new generation of Democrats. That sort of pissed me off a little....as I sort of thought the DNC was doing that thing.

http://www.third-way.com/leadership/

The management team of Third Way, and its sister organization, the Third Way Institute, is composed of political entrepreneurs who have served in senior positions in Congress and the Clinton Administration and also have extensive experience running successful national advocacy groups.

Jon Cowan
President

Jim Kessler
Vice President For Policy

Matt Bennett
Vice President For Public Affairs

Nancy Hale
Director of Finance & Operations

Nancy Jacobson
Senior Advisor

Chad FitzGerald
Director of Development

Sean Barney
Senior Policy Advisor

Aaron Scholer
Director of National Security Policy

Third Way Board of Trustees

Lewis B. Cullman
Scott Delman
John S. Dyson
Robert R. Dyson
Andrew J. McKelvey
Herbert S. Miller
Bernard L. Schwartz A
Adam Solomon
Thurgood Marshall, Jr.
Steve Silberstein

Honorary State Chairs

Blanche Lambert Lincoln
U.S. Senator, Arkansas

Evan Bayh
U.S. Senator, Indiana

Tom Carper
U.S. Senator, Delaware

Our Honorary Vice Chairs:

Mary Landrieu
U.S. Senator, Louisiana

Mark Pryor
U.S. Senator, Arkansas

Ken Salazar
U.S. Senator, Colorado

and I think it was James Carville who taught me this lesson, the last time. And that is that there is a class of politician -- in fact, perhaps most or ALL politicians, who knows? -- for whom the only REAL value is winning, and even winning really has the more personal benefit of "accumulating power."

Carville taught me that not just by marrying Mary Matalin (I can't even be friends with Repugs, really, so marrying one is way beyond my ability to grok), but more recently (a year or so ago) by going down to Venezuela to serve as consultant to the side that was trying to depose Chavez.

The Clintons are all too eager to "compromise" -- that's what we'd call it, but I think that's misinformed of us to elevate it so. It's NOT "compromise," it's negotiating. They don't have any principles to compromise -- they have positions to negotiate -- ALL in the service of themselves, first and foremost, and winning tho the two goals usually converge.


I begin to think that what this party REALLY needs is an infusion NOT of spine, but of principle. I think the American people know at some level that they're being asked to vote for people without any principle whatsoever, just (morally) empty suits. That's one reason Dean had such a loyal and early following, especially of previous non-voters: they could see he has principles and integrity, honesty too.

Does anyone need any more proof that the Clintons are bad for this party AND this country? And the arrogance of working not WITH Howard Dean but against him at this point. How dare they exclude him from this kind of effort (tho I imagine he'd have none of it were he asked to be involved). But it shows the internal struggle going on -- for the very soul of the party!!

I know which side I line up with: The People, as embodied in the Dean chairmanship of the DNC.

They call themselves Young Turks? Like in the Sirius Left show. Strange name.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/2004-12-16-dem-turks_x.htm

It's time to pass torch, younger Dems say
By Jill Lawrence, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — They are opining, organizing and running for party chairman. A wave of young Democrats is demanding not just to be heard but to take charge.
"This generation is looking for ways to participate because we're tired of losing," says Jamal Simmons, 33, a consultant who has worked for presidential hopeful Wesley Clark and several other Southern candidates.

Simmons and his fellow "Young Turks" worry about the Democratic Party's dependence on interest groups, their relations with minority groups, the stereotypes that they are weak on defense and values, the Republican appropriation of the "reformer" label and the swaths of America that Democrats seem to have written off."

"Gerstein is among the many concerned about the Democrats' image. "We've lost the mantle of reform we had for the whole 20th century after Franklin Roosevelt," says Matt Bennett, 39, a former Clark aide and co-founder of a new group called Third Way. "We are seen as defenders of an old system that no longer meets the needs of the 21st century world we live in."

(And we even have an anti-woman woman in the midst):

"Young Democrats believe that the party is dominated by people who came of age politically in the 1960s, and it's time for them to make room for new ideas and new voices. Theirs."

"We respect the struggles of the feminist movement, the civil rights movement and Vietnam, but (we) are not defined by those struggles," says Kirsten Powers, 37, a New York-based strategist and commentator for Fox News. "We want to take what is good in liberalism and make it better, and get rid of what is not working."

(Did you read that? We respect the struggles of the feminist movement, but we are not defined by them.)

I did not find much about her, but I found one conversation at Fox between her and Gibson.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,160775,00.html

I found a paragraph about Jon Cowan at MSNBC, and sounds like they pushing the choice thing a lot.

"In one forthcoming issue brief obtained by NEWSWEEK, Third Way divides voters into abortion "polars"—those at each extreme, who believe it should be always le-gal or always illegal—and abortion "grays," those who believe abortion should be mostly legal or mostly illegal. Surprisingly, Third Way found that Democrats were losing among abortion grays, even though more of them leaned pro-choice. "We've now gotten locked in a frame and policies for 30 years that speak to the polars but don't speak to the grays," says Third Way president Jon Cowan."

More upcoming. This is like an entirely different group of Democrats who don't consider us a part at all.

Matt Bennett is Third Way, helped found it. I heard Rosenberg was part of their network still, not sure, but he is mentioned here.
But where do Kirsten Powers and Jamal Simmons fit in? Are they Third Way or part of NDN or part of all.

with something new. (Good work, btw.)


Simmons and his fellow "Young Turks" worry about the Democratic Party's dependence on interest groups, their relations with minority groups, the stereotypes that they are weak on defense and values, the Republican appropriation of the "reformer" label and the swaths of America that Democrats seem to have written off."

compare with:


How the DLC Does It, Robert Dreyfuss, TAP
http://www.prospect.org/print-friendly/print/V12/7/dreyfuss-r.html

Simon Rosenberg, the former field director for the DLC who directs the New Democrat Network, a spin-off political action committee, says, "We're trying to raise money to help them lessen their reliance on traditional interest groups in the Democratic Party. In that way," he adds, "they are ideologically freed, frankly, from taking positions that make it difficult for Democrats to win."

-- much more --

Make no mistake: the "interest groups" who get in the way of the mighty DLC insiders are US -- the penniless base of the party. They have figured out that they can cater to corporations, get their funding the easy way, ignore us and still get the votes (or not -- does it matter? Probably not so much. After all, the Republicans STILL are better Republicans than the DLC Repug-wannabes.)


And here is a MUST READ Oct. 2000 article:
Behind the DLC Takeover - Democratic Leadership Council
John Nichols
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1295/is_10_64/ai_65952690/print

snip

This is not some fantastic political thriller starring Harrison Ford or Sharon Stone. This is the real-life version of Invasion of the Party Snatchers--with the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) burrowing into the pod that is the Democratic Party.

Founded in the mid-1980s with essentially the same purpose as the Christian Coalition--to pull a broad political party dramatically to the right--the DLC has been far more successful than its headline-grabbing Republican counterpart. After Walter Mondale's 1984 defeat at the hands of Ronald Reagan, a group of mostly Southern, conservative Democrats hatched the theory that their party was in trouble because it had grown too sympathetic to the agendas of organized labor, feminists, African Americans, Latinos, gays and lesbians, peace activists, and egalitarians.

And they found willing corporate allies, in corporate America, who provided the money needed to make a theory appear to be a movement. In the ensuing fifteen years, the DLC's impact on the American political debate has been dramatic. The group now controls much of the upper-level apparatus of the Democratic Party.

snip

"With the DLC in a position to influence the Democratic Party, Wall Street wins either way," says populist Jim Hightower, who has abandoned his lifelong loyalty to the Democratic Party this year in order to back Nader's candidacy. "If the Republicans win, the corporations have a party in power that will do their bidding. And if the Democrats win, Wall Street knows the DLC will keep them in line."

How did the DLC become so powerful? In part, by grabbing hold of party machinery and hanging on for dear life. As far back as 1988, just three years after the organization's founding, DLC-ers mounted a full-scale effort to reshape the party. First, they engineered the development of the Southern "Super Tuesday" primary in an unsuccessful attempt to secure the Presidential nomination for a Southerner such as Gore the first time around. Next, they installed another DLC cofounder, Michigan Governor James Blanchard, as chair of the party platform committee.

-- much more, MUST READ --



The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves. -- Lenin

Reagan's interventions in Central America.

They have a reputation among conservatives as being "far left," but it hasn't been true for a long, long time, if ever.

to tnr years ago when they were writing like bush lovers..I guess they've decided he's too crazy and they're get behind someone less maniacle like joe LIEberman???

I'm a "The Nation" kinda girl, myself.

But they keep sending it, even though they gave me my money back...I still get the monthly download.

you've discovered what they're up to now and let us know.

It's important to know what your enemy is doing..thanks, madfloridian.

Something ELSE to be against. Damn.

Don't even have to read the rest (but curiosity got the better of me and I did) to know what crap they spew.

If this succeeds, I'm gone from the party.

telegraphing this move.

Should come as no surprise.

Ok, I don't have an opinion about guns and control, really. It is just not an issue for me...except I think there should be an automatic weapons ban. Otherwise, I don't care.

Nearly all of their leadership are also connected with AGS. Why in the world would they need to form their own wing of the party? Why? Weapons, guns? Just thinking out loud, you know.

http://www.americansforgunsafety.com/the_issues.asp

Here are their short bios.
http://www.third-way.com/leadership/#nhale

I really am just thinking out loud about this. I don't understand the huge deal about guns, unless it leads to weapons overall, as in defense.

Why would people start their own wing of the party and call the rest of us anti-war fringe activists? Yeh, thanks Al From.

NRA does not really care for AGS, but they both seem to be very involved with our politics.

Or, more succinctly, morons.

what's that tell ya?

TNR is too far to the right for me. If they like it I probably won't.

And a few choice words to show they do not think of us as a part of the party at all.

http://www.third-way.com/news/makeover.htm?coll=la-home-headlines
An elite group of senators, former Cabinet members, and foreign-policy experts gathered for dinner in a private room at the Ritz-Carlton in Georgetown on a recent Monday. Mickey Kantor, who served as President Clinton's U.S. trade representative, was there, as was Sandy Berger, Clinton's national security adviser, and Graham Allison, Clinton's assistant Defense secretary for policy and plans. Also among the 32 guests were Sens. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., and Evan Bayh, D-Ind., along with Washington journalist Peter Beinart and Democratic pollster Mark Penn.

The topic: how to set a bold new foreign-policy agenda for the Democratic Party. It was hardly a subject that could be digested over a single meal. But as they dined on field greens, salmon, and creme caramel, the guests agreed on a few points: The progressive movement has failed to embrace a strong national defense; the Bush administration has become mired in Iraq, even as nuclear threats build elsewhere; and Democrats must articulate a robust foreign-policy alternative.

The guests also agreed to keep meeting, talking, and working with the Third Way, the fledgling progressive think tank that hosted the A-list affair and billed it as its first "national security thought dinner."

"Not all Democrats agree with the Third Way's founders that the progressive movement is out of step with the times, or that it needs to be dragged toward the center. But powwows like the one held in Georgetown are increasingly common in Washington these days, as Democrats of all stripes huddle to figure out how they can develop winning ideas and messages for their battered party. Even before the 2004 election left them reeling, many Democrats argued that it was high time for progressives to invest in think tanks, media outlets, and other party-building institutions. Democrats like Simon Rosenberg, who heads the New Democrat Network, and Washington lawyer Rob Stein have been urging progressive donors for more than a year to move beyond campaign contributions and help underwrite what they call the party's intellectual infrastructure.

Stein's pitch to donors, as described in The New York Times Magazine in July, is that conservatives have spent three decades building a powerful network of policy, media, and ideological groups that's now a $300 million-a-year enterprise. Stein is at the center of a clique of brainy, well-connected Democrats who would like to see progressives follow the same route."

And there is a long portion of the article about the Center for American Progress, CAP. Is it really that powerful...like a war room? Is it that well-funded and powerful. The section is too long to post in entirety. And is David Sirota still part of CAP or did he leave?

SNIP..."At the Center for American Progress, the generosity of progressive donors is clearly evident. The center's sleek, modern auditorium was filled to capacity during a recent press event touting a new book on public health and environmental policy. Flat-panel TVs lined the walls, and light poured in through the floor-to-ceiling plate-glass windows at the center's spacious new headquarters on H Street in downtown Washington."

Not all of the fellows at the Center for American Progress are Democrats. Also on board is Lawrence Korb, who was an assistant Defense secretary during the Reagan administration. CAP, while unabashedly progressive, bills itself as nonpartisan, apparently a sensitive point for Podesta."

(Could someone tell me why there is such a long blank space at the bottom of my posts lately? Is it me or DU)

said, "The New Republic is teeming with Third Way Democrats." :evilgrin:

How true that seems to be.

I thought I would give this a kick and link to there.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=4385019&mesg_id=4385019

Nation" subscriptions surge. Pro-war "TNR" losing readers.

Pardon me while I chuckle.

"Today, despite the growing evidence that the Bush Administration's actions in Iraq have been a colossal--some would say criminal--failure, what's striking is how much of the pyramid remains essentially in place. As the Iraqi insurgency turned increasingly violent, and the much-hyped WMDs never turned up, the hawks attempted a bit of self-evaluation. Slate and The New Republic both hosted windy pseudo-mea culpa forums. Of the eight liberal hawks invited by Slate, journalist Fred Kaplan remarked, "I seem to be the only one in the club who's changed his mind." TNR's confession was even more limited, with Beinart admitting that he overcame his distrust of Bush so that he could "feel superior to the Democrats."

http://www.thenation.com/docprint.mhtml?i=20050829&s=berman

I am not renewing. It is like a likkud party official publication.

because no one will buy it.

Then they can change their name to The Free Republic.

that should tell people something right there ....